The Kenosha telegraph. [volume] (Kenosha, Wis.) 1860-1888, 1887-12-09
PROHIBITION VICTORY.

/ Inc United States Supreme Court -
| States May Danish gntox Giants from
Their Borders Without Compensation.
| WASHINGTON, Dec 6.--Justice Harlan de-
livered the opinion Of the court yesterday
| in the two so-ealled nSohiDition cases of
Peter MusleI, plaintiff in error, vs. the
Stale of Kansas, and in the case of the State
of Kansas vs. Herman ziebeId aid others.
affirming the Judgment OF the lower court
In the t9o @Mugler1 cases and revers-
| Zig the Judgment in the ZIebold case. The
! effect of this opinion is to declare valid the
| prohibition laws of the State of Kansas.
and of course is a decided victory fcs the
I Prohibitionists. The decision is very Inn
/ porsaAt, and likely to be far-reaching in it's
/ consequences The Judgment Of the court
| was pronounced in a long and elaborate
1 opinion by lfr Justice Harlan, who said
'afhe general question in each case is wbethef
the prohibition statutes q Kansas are in con-
| fict with that clause OF the fourteenth amend
mens which provides that no State shall
make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or rimunities of citizens of
/ the United States, nor shall any State
! deprive any person of life, liberty or prop
| erty without due process of Law; a'hat
| legislation by a State prohibiting the manu-
! facture within aef limits of intoxicating liquors.
beverage, does not necessarily infringe any
| rights, privilege or immunity secured by the
| constitution of the United States, is made
| clear by the decisions IF this cotrt
rendered before and sif1ce the adop-
| ton Of the Fourteenth amendment It is,
| however, contended that, although the State
may prohibit the manufacture of Intoxicating
liquors for sale or barter within her limits, tor
| general use as a beverage, no convention or
hee 4np ,1rda Of
| government, to prohibit any citizen from man
ufactur ng, for s own use or for exp ri OF
| storage, any article of food OF drink not en-
dangering or affeetiig The rights of others.
The argument made in support of the first
branch OF this proposition briefly stated is;
That in the implied compaots between the State
and the citizen certain rights are reserved by
the latter which are guaranteed by the
constitutional provision for the protection
OF life, liberty and property against
| deprivation without due process of law
and with which the State can not interfere;
that among those rights is that of man
ufactaring, for en6'5 own use, either food or
drink; that While, according to the doctrines of
the Commune, the State may control the
tastes, appetites, habits, dress food and drink
OF the cit zen. our system of government, based
upon the individuality and lntellj gence Of the
people, does not claim to control him exert
to his conduct to others, leaving him the sole
judge IS to all that only affects himself.
1T will be observed that the proposition and
the argument made in support oft equally Con-
cede that the right to manufacture drink for
ones personal use is subject to the conjit on
that such manufacture does not endanger or
affect the rights Of Others If such manufacture
does prejudcally affect the rights and in
terests OF the community, it follows from the
very prem ses stated by counsel that society
h1, 10 al atiO
against the injurious consequences of that bust
ness. AS was said in Mum VS.. Ilingers (94 U.
s, 1a4), while power does not exist W tn the
whole people to control rights that are purely
and conclusively private, the Government may
require each citizen SO to conduct himself and
80 to use his property as not necessarily to in
jure others.
"But by whom or by what authority is it to be
determined whether the manufacture of partic-
ular articles of drink, either for general use or
for the personal use OF the maker, viii injuri-
ously affect the public? Power to determine
such questions, SO as to bind all, must exist
somewhere else society VIII be at the mercy
Of the few, who, regarding only their own
anpetites or passions may be willing to
imperil the peace and security of the many,
provided only they are permitted to do as they
please. Under our system that POWER is
lodged with the legislative branch of the Gov
eminent. 1t belongs to that department to
exert what are known as the police powers of
the States. 1t must be determined primarily
/ what measures are appropriate or needful for
the protection of the public morals, the public
health or the public safety.
=" 1t does not at all follow from these princi-
pies that every statute enacted ostensbly for
the promotion of these ends, is to be accepted
as legitimate eXertion of the police powers of
the State. There are Of necessity limits beyond
which LEGISLATION riGhtfullV so Ac hn
courts must obey the constitution rather than
the lawmazing department of government, it
must upon its responsibility determine whether
in any particular case these limits have been
passed. The courts are not bound by mere
FORMS nor are they to be misled by mere pre-
tense. They are at liberty-indeed are under
solemn duty-to look ct the substance
Of things whenever they enter upon
the inquiry whether the Legislature has
transcribed the limits of its authority If,
therefore, statute purporting to have been
enacted protect the public health, the pub
lie morals or the public safety, has no real SUBJ
stantial relation to these objects, or is a pal
pable invasion of rights secured by the funda-
mental law it is the duty of the courts to so
adiudge, and thereby give effect to the consti-
tuition.
Excepting In view these principles, as govern
ing the relations with each other of the judi
cial and legislative departments of govern
ment 1t is difficult TO perceive any ground for
the judiciary to declare that the prohibition by
Kansas of the manufacture or sale within her
limits of intox eating liquors, for general use
there as beverage, is not fairly adapted to the
end of protecting the community against the
evils which contessedly result from the excess
Sive use of ardent spirits.
There is here no Justification for holding
that the State, under the guise merely of police
regulations, is aiming to deprive the citizen of
his const tutional rights; for we can not shut
out of view the fact, within the knowledge of
all, that the public health, the public NOR
ais and the public safety may be endan-
gered by the general use of Intoxicating
drinks. Nor can we ignore the fact, established
by statistics accessible to every one, that the
disorder, paupers SIN and crime prevalent in the
country are in a large measure directly trace
able to this evil. IT, therefore, a State deems
the absolute prohibition of the manufacture
and sale within her limits of intoxicating
liquors for other than medical scientific
and manufacturing purposes, to be neces-
sary to the peace and security of society, the
courts can not without usurping legislative
functions, override the will of the PEOPLE as thus
expressed by their chosen representatives 1t is
funda mental principle in our institutions, in
dispensable TO the preservation OF public lib
erty, that one of the separate departments of
government shall not usurp lowers committed
by the constitution to another department.
And so, if IN the judgment of the Legsla-
ture, the manufacture of Intoxicating liquors
for the makers own use as o beverage would
tend to CRIPPLE if not defeat, her efforts to
guard the community against the evils attend
ing the excessive use of such liquors. it is not for
the courts, upon their ews as to what is best
ana safest for the community to disregard the
legislative determination of the question. So far
from such regulation being inappropriate to
the general end sought to be accomplished, it is
easy to be seen that the entire scheme of pro-
hibition, as embodied in the constitution and
laws OF Kansas, might fail if the right of each
C tizen to manufacture Intoxicating liquors for
his owRuse as a beverage were recognized.
Such a right does not inhere in cit zen
ship. Nor can it be said that the Government
interfereS with or impairs any ones con-
stitutional rights of liberty of property when
1t determines that the manufacture and sale of
intoxicating drinks for general or individual
use as d beverage are or may become hurtful to
society and to every member of IT, and is there
| fore business in which no one
can lawfully engage. This conclusion is
unavoidable, unless the fourteenth amendment
OF the constitution takes from the States of the
u